Tuesday, March 27, 2012

The Hunger Games (2012)

The Hunger Games. I took the kiddos to see the 10:15 p.m. showing Saturday night. They originally tried to negotiate the midnight showing early Friday morning but luckily the tickets were sold out. Also, I would have been one very tired for work on Friday and they for school. Not to mention, I did not want to fight ANY crowds for this movie.

So, I purchased the books Thursday evening because my oldest had read the hard backs from a friend over the past week. The 1st book was returned before the 2nd book was lent so I was unable to read the physical books. I probably wouldn't have finished the 1st book in a few days much less a week anyway. I'm just cannot focus that much on reading at one time no matter how good the story is. Hence, I purchased the e-books through my Kindle. I figured I could at least read the 2nd and 3rd before the 2nd movie comes out in a year or two. Thursday night, I got to read up to chapter three. I didn't get to read much on Friday so deciding to see the movie on Saturday was going to force a decision upon me after the movie: continue to read book one or let it go. I decided to continue to read to compare what I saw in the movie versus the book version. I've heard and read that some things were left out of the movie.

Many of the reviews were positive, some mixed but mostly positive. What I've read has ranged from "it was awesome!" to "it was well made even though not completely true to the book" to "even if you haven't read the books, you'll like this movie. I obviously fall in the last comment. Based on this comment, I would agree but not wholeheartedly.

I think it was a good movie. I think it was lacking. Maybe I'm biased because I like high action, adventure and intrigue. I do think it was a decent movie. I think it was too generic and there have been many story lines based on a similar concept of terrible, 'gruesome' competitions in arenas or fight-the-system. (See The Running Man, Gamer, Tron, Children of Men, Escape from New York/Escape from L.A., etc.)

Anyway, go see it. You'll probably like enough to say that it was worth the ticket price. I on the other hand will continue reading the first book and move on to the other two just because I think the movie just didn't do it for me from the little bit that I did read of the book (about 2 1/2 chapters) before seeing the movie.

Edward Furlong

Dude, what the hell happened to John Connor?

From this:

from The Terminator

To this:

from High Hopes


Monday, March 19, 2012

Fallen (1998)

Fallen (1998). I was watching this movie on Netflix today. It's not that bad of a movie being that it's like 14 years old but I'm trying to my money's worth out of my Netflix membership by watching movies that I may have missed over the past 10 to 20 years.

Anyway, I'm getting near the end and I noticed a discrepancy in the filming...which I often do and my wife hates it when we watch together. About an hour and seventeen minutes in (according to play on Netflix), Denzel's character has to shoot a person wielding a gun at him and about to shoot. The first screen shot is just after Denzel's character shoots the person with one shot. The second screen shot is of Denzel's character just after they show the person get shot, hit the ground and then they return to view Denzel's character. Do you notice the difference?


If you didn't see the discrepancy, it's the gun. The first image clearly shows the weapon is empty after the one shot. The slide is back which reveals that the chamber and clip are empty. The second image shows the slide in it's "normal" position as if the gun was still loaded. Someone messed up on the editing but I guess something so minimal typically isn't picked up by a "normal" watching audience. They probably figured it was cheaper to not reshoot the image.

As far as the movie goes, it's a little slow most of the time. It is just barely watchable but there are probably other movies to "waste" your time on.

Diet Coke Mobile

Door from Dallas to Taos


Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Kevin Smith - Too Fat for 40 (2010)

Kevin Smith - Too Fat for 40 (2010). I watched this back around the first week in December 2011 via Netflix. I must say that I wasn't all that impressed. As far as stand-up goes, Kevin Smith sucks. I know he's not a stand-up comic and I think he admits as much in the show. I just really didn't get the point of the show. It was slow, boring, and I found myself wanting him to channel Silent Bob and have Jay appear to make the show interesting.

I feel sorry for all the sorry suckers that purchased tickets to attend his show live. I would have been very disappointed but I also would have never purchased in the first place. There aren't many "real" funny people that I would pay to see. Maybe Larry the Cable Guy, Jeff Foxworthy, Ron the 'Drunk', George Carlin, Richard Pryor or Howie Mandel (before he became really weird).

I think Kevin should stick to making 50/50 movies: half are good/decent and the other half are shit. He's almost like Adam Sandler these day but Sandler seems to have a bigger following which continues to encourage him to make shit movies. However, it does speak volumes at the money Sandler must have since Saturday Night Live with his Happy Madison Productions and such.

Anyway, I wouldn't waste your time with Too Fat for 40. It was mind-numbing, horrible and I barely endured it. I think I had to watch some high-action movies or something to get over the downer 'Too Fat' caused.

Monday, March 05, 2012

What's the point of a paywall?

So, this may not be true for all online newspapers but what's the point of forcing people to pay for an online subscription when there is always some "free" outlet to get the story?

Case in point. I'm on the RSS feed for the Dallas News. I added it when the online paper was "free." Now, I mainly see the headlines and a few lines of the story before it expects me to "get Subscriber content" upon opening/paying for an account. Anyway, this story was was of the headlines in my Dallas News RSS:
Wylie man's invention turns trash into building blocks for Third World homes
I was more curious about it and I'll be damned if I'm paying for "news." So I Googled it. Turn out NBCDFW.com had it for free (here).

So again, why charge people for what is essentially able to be found for "free" somewhere else? It's not a very good or smart business model...unless, you bet your money on those idiots that will pay for it. Which I'm sure they did, there are, and that's why they do.